Olmos, TX police injure and arrest open carrier - President of Open Carry Texas

[MAC702]

... I still see it as unconstitutional, because it places an unlawful infringement on a legal carrier. Or am I wrong?

You don't HAVE to be on THEIR private property. But they do have to provide a legally-identifiable notice that your firearm is not allowed on their private property.

This is separate from banning firearms on PUBLIC property, which is unconstitutional.

 

[hammer6]

You don't HAVE to be on THEIR private property. But they do have to provide a legally-identifiable notice that your firearm is not allowed on their private property.

This is separate from banning firearms on PUBLIC property, which is unconstitutional.

I get it. But why is it different for a gun than a t-shirt or shoes?

 

[gutshot II]

Thanks Kevin- only explanation I've ever gotten on this issue. It now makes sense, but I still see it as unconstitutional, because it places an unlawful infringement on a legal carrier. Or am I wrong?

Yes, you are wrong. The constitution is a restraint on the government. It has no application to private property. It is not different for a gun and a T-shirt. It is different because the government is involved in one instance and not involved in the other. If there was a constitutional right to wear a T-shirt, they would be the same. If the "unlawful infringment" was by the government, you'd be right.

 

[color of law]

Yes, you are wrong. The constitution is a restraint on the government. It has no application to private property. It is not different for a gun and a T-shirt. It is different because the government is involved in one instance and not involved in the other. If there was a constitutional right to wear a T-shirt, they would be the same. If the "unlawful infringement" was by the government, you'd be right.

Not necessarily true. Private property that is not open to the public (your home) can limit or deny just about anything coming into their home. But, a business does not have that luxury. They are a creature of the state. They don't exist but at the pleasure of the state. The state makes the rules. Like in Ohio for a business to keep guns out the business they must put-up a sign, no sign no trespass. However, it all depends on what your state law says. When a business open their boors to the public and you enter to inquire, purchase or make a transaction you cannot be trespassing unless you are committing a crime in the process of making purchase. No shirt, no shoes, no service for example. Carrying a gun is generally not a crime. Some states say signs have no effect of law, some do. It is not a yes/no answer.

And yes, I have personal experience.

 

[gutshot II]

Not necessarily true. Private property that is not open to the public (your home) can limit or deny just about anything coming into their home. But, a business does not have that luxury. They are a creature of the state. They don't exist but at the pleasure of the state. The state makes the rules. Like in Ohio for a business to keep guns out the business they must put-up a sign, no sign no trespass. However, it all depends on what your state law says. When a business open their boors to the public and you enter to inquire, purchase or make a transaction you cannot be trespassing unless you are committing a crime in the process of making purchase. No shirt, no shoes, no service for example. Carrying a gun is generally not a crime. Some states say signs have no effect of law, some do. It is not a yes/no answer.

And yes, I have personal experience.

Your post has nothing to do with what I posted. Why do you quote my response to hammer6 and then post about something completely unrelated. I said nothing about "trespass". I didn't mention Ohio or any Ohio law. Of course the state can pass laws effecting private business. They do it all the time and I never said that they can't. Those would be violations of STATUTE. Statute is what authorized 30.06 and 30.07 signs. We are talking about CONSTITUTIONAL violations. You can not mix and match the two. They are not the same. If they were the same, the statutes would not be necessary. The post that I was responing to made no mention of violations of statute. It only said the infringment was "unconstitutional" and that is all my response addressed. See below:

Originally Posted by hammer6 View Post
... I still see it as unconstitutional, because it places an unlawful infringement on a legal carrier. Or am I wrong?

 

[color of law]

Your post has nothing to do with what I posted. Why do you quote my response to hammer6 and then post about something completely unrelated. I said nothing about "trespass". I didn't mention Ohio or any Ohio law. Of course the state can pass laws effecting private business. They do it all the time and I never said that they can't. Those would be violations of STATUTE. Statute is what authorized 30.06 and 30.07 signs. We are talking about CONSTITUTIONAL violations. You can not mix and match the two. They are not the same. If they were the same, the statutes would not be necessary. The post that I was responing to made no mention of violations of statute. It only said the infringment was "unconstitutional" and that is all my response addressed. See below:

Well I disagree. TX 30.06 and 30.07 are in effect trespass statutes and Trespass is a common law crime predating the constitution. Property lines were common highways. Outside those property lines was a trespass.

But, in reading of 30.06 and 30.07 it is clear that the statutes only apply to those that have a license issued under 46.035(f)(2) "License holder" means a person licensed to carry a handgun under Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code. In effect making 30.06 and 30.07 inapplicable to gutshot II and myself, or to those out of state licensees recognized by TX. That being the case I would think the two statutes are unconstitutional.

 

[gutshot II]

Well I disagree. TX 30.06 and 30.07 are in effect trespass statutes and Trespass is a common law crime predating the constitution. Property lines were common highways. Outside those property lines was a trespass.

But, in reading of 30.06 and 30.07 it is clear that the statutes only apply to those that have a license issued under 46.035(f)(2) "License holder" means a person licensed to carry a handgun under Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code. In effect making 30.06 and 30.07 inapplicable to gutshot II and myself, or to those out of state licensees recognized by TX. That being the case I would think the two statutes are unconstitutional.

Once again you veer badly off course. Hammer6 was asking if a private business prohibiting persons from carrying guns on the business property was unconstitutional, not if 30.06 and 30.07 are. The correct answer to the question asked, regardless of your opinion of all the possible side issues and all of the other questions that might have been asked but in reality were not asked, is NO it is not unconstitutional for a private property owner to demand that firearms be kept off of their property and, as I said in my original post, the reason it is not unconstitutional is because the constitution does not restrict private property owners from setting the rules for their property. A rule made by a private property owner can not be ruled "unconstitutional". It is not even "unconstitutional" for a merchant to refuse to serve black people. It may be illegal, but not "unconstitional". It might violate the "Civil Rights Act of 1964" and several state laws, but the constitution has no application in that situation. Try to narrow your focus just a little bit.

Now, if hammer6 decides he wants to know about 30.06 and 30.07, he may, someday in the future, ask about them, but so far he has not asked and I have not commented on that subject.

 

[color of law]

Once again you veer badly off course. Hammer6 was asking if a private business prohibiting persons from carrying guns on the business property was unconstitutional, not if 30.06 and 30.07 are. The correct answer to the question asked, regardless of your opinion of all the possible side issues and all of the other questions that might have been asked but in reality were not asked, is NO it is not unconstitutional for a private property owner to demand that firearms be kept off of their property and, as I said in my original post, the reason it is not unconstitutional is because the constitution does not restrict private property owners from setting the rules for their property. A rule made by a private property owner can not be ruled "unconstitutional". It is not even "unconstitutional" for a merchant to refuse to serve black people. It may be illegal, but not "unconstitional". It might violate the "Civil Rights Act of 1964" and several state laws, but the constitution has no application in that situation. Try to narrow your focus just a little bit.

Now, if hammer6 decides he wants to know about 30.06 and 30.07, he may, someday in the future, ask about them, but so far he has not asked and I have not commented on that subject.

Well, I can only suggest you read the Privileges or Immunities Clause (Section 1, Clause 2) of the 14th. Amendment of the Constitution, and McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U.S. 742 (2010)

 

[gutshot II]

Well, I can only suggest you read the Privileges or Immunities Clause (Section 1, Clause 2) of the 14th. Amendment of the Constitution, and McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U.S. 742 (2010)

No thanks. The last ten times I read them changed nothing. "No guns" signs on private property still exist in every state that I know about. I doubt that me reading them again will change that. I'll just wait for you to win a lawsuit by getting a Federal Judge to declare them "unconstitutional". It shouldn't take long.

 

[KBCraig]

Texas Penal Codes 30.05, 30.06, and 30.07 have absolutely no bearing on the events in Olmos Park. There was no private property involved, just city streets and public sidewalks (including some not actually in Olmos Park; the Tribeca restaurant side of the street where the arrest happened is in San Antonio, not Olmos Park).

So, let's please get off the side chatter about irrelevant matters.

 

[BB62]

Texas Penal Codes 30.05, 30.06, and 30.07 have absolutely no bearing on the events in Olmos Park. There was no private property involved, just city streets and public sidewalks (including some not actually in Olmos Park; the Tribeca restaurant side of the street where the arrest happened is in San Antonio, not Olmos Park).

So, let's please get off the side chatter about irrelevant matters.

(my bold above)

That is STUNNING information!

Are the charges against Grisham, et al, state violations or Olmos Park violations?

(and I agree, please STOP with the off-topic arguments about trespassing)

 

[solus]

Interesting news article about threats against Olmos Park Tx police BEFORE C.J.’s escapades took place!

If not fake news, certainly puts the LEs reaction in a different light now doesn’t it?

A 34-year-old Amarillo man was arrested Thursday for making nine threatening calls to police dispatchers and telling them he would “put a bullet between anybody’s eyes if they attempted to violate the law and my rights,” officials say.

Earle Melverly Bishop is facing one charge of telephone harassment, a class B misdemeanor, according to court records.

According to an arrest warrant filed in Bexar County, Bishop called a non-emergency police line around 11 p.m. March 20 to complain about the arrest of a gun rights activist in February or early March.

If you hang up on me again, I’m going to file charges against you under the act of Treason which is punishable by Death. Do you understand me?” Bishop said during the second call, according to the warrant.

During later calls, Bishop told dispatchers that Olmos Park Police Chief Rene Valenciano should be placed under a citizen’s arrest for treason, the warrant states. He also said he could kill an officer acting unlawfully “in cold blood and nobody could do anything about it because he violated the law first,” the warrant states.

Officials say Bishop told dispatchers he could have legally executed both Olmos Park police officers who arrested the gun rights activist.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/crim...ing-gun-rights-activist/ar-AAvitrC?li=BBnbfcL

 

[solus]

Texas Penal Codes 30.05, 30.06, and 30.07 have absolutely no bearing on the events in Olmos Park. There was no private property involved, just city streets and public sidewalks (including some not actually in Olmos Park; the Tribeca restaurant side of the street where the arrest happened is in San Antonio, not Olmos Park).

So, let's please get off the side chatter about irrelevant matters.

So Let’s discuss relevant matters then shall we, the lads were taken down on the corner of Earl & McCullough next to a linen shop and the female was taken down across the street in the parking lot of the guitar shop. Better video perspective as eneryone is comfy face down!

https://m.youtube.com/watch?feature=youtu.be&v=CrE9umONdnk

interesting fact KBCraig, your are correct the Tribeca’s address on the internet, ad nauseam, is listed as SA Tx cuz like other big cities with a consolidated bunch of small communities Olmos Park is for ease of location associated with the largest nearby city/town but does reside in the city limits of Olmos Park!

Another interesting fact KBCraig, if ya watch the video in my post which towards the end shows the female being cuffed and look behind those two, between the buildings, you can see the Olmos Park city hall!

So in a sense KBCraig, you were partially correct you post had ‘...absolutely no bearing...’

ipse

 

[solus]

For the record

What were the Olmos Park gang of three officially charged with as C.J.’s site seems unusally quiet about the whole event except for one press release re the city council removing the offending ordinance and a oh by the way type observation about C.J. & Miler’s arrest in Feb.

 

[Fallschirjmäger]

Arrest record are public information, so there's no need to go to a any person's website to see what they may or may not have placed there.

With the unanimous repeal of Sec. 24-85 it's most likely that the county solicitor will ask that the charges be nolle prosequied and swept under the rug (without any admission of wrong doing by Olmos Park Police, of course.)

 

[mobeewan]

What were the Olmos Park gang of three officially charged with as C.J.’s site seems unusally quiet about the whole event except for one press release re the city council removing the offending ordinance and a oh by the way type observation about C.J. & Miler’s arrest in Feb.

Joanna was arrested because Olmos Park had issued an arrest warrant on her on Mar 23 for "interfering with the duties of a public servant" during the incident on Feb 20, when Jack Miller was arrested. During that incident she was 30 feet away from Jack standing on a sidewalk filming. An officer with an AR decided that she was a bigger danger than Jack and veered toward here yelling for her to stop filming. Her ran up to her and hit her knocking the camera out of her hand and knocking her to the ground.

The arrest warrant was retaliatory because of the negative publicity being generated due Jack's arrest and her being assaulted by the cop. Olmos Park tried to get Live Oak PD to execute the warrant and they refused when they found out what was going on and that the warrant was BS.

Here is a video showing her being assaulted. Typical cop assaults someone then charges them with interference or disorderly conduct, etc, etc, etc, later when it goes public and they start taking heat.

Everyone knew she was going to get arrested. Just more rope for Olmos Park to hang themselves with. I think they all knew Olmos Park was going to get out of hand because they can't help themselves. That's why they had several people recording video.

https://youtu.be/kyIxNncS8Ec

 

[mobeewan]

Alamo Heights, next door to Olmos Park, to repeal their no carrying a loaded firearm ordinance at special council session.

https://youtu.be/v9MpwboSJPk

 

[solus]

Joanna was arrested because Olmos Park had issued an arrest warrant on her on Mar 23 for "interfering with the duties of a public servant" during the incident on Feb 20, when Jack Miller was arrested. During that incident she was 30 feet away from Jack standing on a sidewalk filming. An officer with an AR decided that she was a bigger danger than Jack and veered toward here yelling for her to stop filming. Her ran up to her and hit her knocking the camera out of her hand and knocking her to the ground.

The arrest warrant was retaliatory because of the negative publicity being generated due Jack's arrest and her being assaulted by the cop. Olmos Park tried to get Live Oak PD to execute the warrant and they refused when they found out what was going on and that the warrant was BS.

Here is a video showing her being assaulted. Typical cop assaults someone then charges them with interference or disorderly conduct, etc, etc, etc, later when it goes public and they start taking heat.

Everyone knew she was going to get arrested. Just more rope for Olmos Park to hang themselves with. I think they all knew Olmos Park was going to get out of hand because they can't help themselves. That's why they had several people recording video.

https://youtu.be/kyIxNncS8Ec

Thanks for that interesting information about why she was taken into custody.

 

[hammer6]

yikes

 

[BB62]

Some more history from OCT (just posted today) about the Olmos Park PD's actions (and of course why OCT has problems with same): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rmPefcSLR7Q&feature=youtu.be